Posted by Sagkeeng (216.34.244.150) on April 26, 2001 at 16:23:03:
In Reply to: Phil Fontiane Stance posted by Robert Johnson on April 25, 2001 at 15:53:23:
Mr. Johnson,
It is always with great amusement and expectation that I read your views and opinions on the politics and issues of our people. A person such as yourself with a long history in the service of your people and an extensive track record dealing on a nation to nation basis with the colonial governments of the day always has a credible and valid point of view.
However, when the point of view is illogical and based on written inconsistencies and personal ranting one can not help but offer a rebuttal based on fact and logical thought process.
I would like to offer the comment based on the misconception that somebody suffered a "devastating" loss. Devastating perhaps to the writer of the missive in question, but one must also draw the line between a publisher's need to increase readership through inflammatory or exaggerated choice of wording and the actuality of the event. I don't think that anybody was "devastated" by the choice the chiefs made, and to say otherwise is purely speculation.
I also would say that the only people up in arms over the poorly chosen and insulting comments made by the national chief are those that have been unfairly tarnished by the sweeping and facetious generality spouted by the national chief. Do you or the national chief know that statistical evidence shows that First Nation people have a greater per-capita percentage of non-drinking people than Canadian society as a whole? Obviously not.
By your comments it is obvious that you buy into the white society's perception that all of our people and particularly our leadership are all drunks. I do not think that it is the role of any national chief to denounce or denigrate a person's choice to drink or not drink, to smoke or not smoke, or to dance or not dance. Further, a national chief must not have the audacity to publically characterize his people in the fashion that he did. What he did was perpetuate a malicious stereotype akin to those espoused by racist organizations the world over.
I think that with your vast experience in a leadership role you can recognize that one's role is limited by the mandate of that role. If one does not have a mandate to enact and enforce rules of conduct, should one dictate what those rule are and what the penalties for breaking those rules should be? It is not the mandate of a national chief or a provincial grand chief to establish, enforce or create rules of conduct. But you knew that right?
Mr. Johnson, obviously you are not aware of the history of First Nation people of Manitoba. If somebody were to ask you which band first took control of the education needs of their band members, could you answer it? Could you also answer who was the chief of that band at that time? Would you not say that was a positive step in addressing the education issues of our people? I also need not inform you that Education was one of the cornerstones of FAI as well.
In the past AFN election campaign and during the course of the previous AFN administration there was a strong focus on the achievements of our Nations despite the lack of resources to support these achievements. The message of what we have accomplished from the little we receive was always prominent. With access to the internet you should find this out for yourself.
It's good that you care enough to be concerned about First Nations. It's also good that you are able to express yourself despite the inability to spell properly or form realistic arguments to support your point of view. I support the opportunity we have to express our opinions.
I would say that our graduates who are doctors, lawyers, scientists and teachers would take great exception to your claim that they cannot read or write properly. I would also say that the First Nations who have cultivated exceptionally successful entrepreneurial initiatives would also dispute your blanket assertion.
Having said that, it is recognized that these achievements are not the norm in our communities. But they have happened are increasing in regularity despite your pessimistic point of view. As long as our people exist there is hope for a better tomorrow. You would serve the future well to do more to make the lives of our grandchildren's great-grandchildren as they should be rather than cry and moan and carry on.
Things will not change overnight. After all, it took 400 years for things to get to where they are now. Do you realistically think that 3 years is enough time to correct what has been done?